Government regulations are not neutral when they "treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise," said the majority, noting that "it is no answer that a state treats some comparable...activities as poorly as...the religious exercise at issue."
The U.S. Supreme Court seemed ready on Tuesday to uphold Arizona's restrictive voting laws, setting the stage for what happens in the coming months and years, as Republican-dominated state legislatures seek to make voting more difficult.
This is unfortunate as voting should be as easy as possible to maximize participation, and not to munipulate the output if folks don't agree with the conclusions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily barred New York from enforcing strict attendance limits on places of worship in areas designated coronavirus hot spots, in a decision released late Wednesday.
The court ruled that Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order violated the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause, and actively discriminated against religious institutions.
"The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty," the unsigned majority decision read.
While on the 7th Circuit, Barrett wrote that the Second Amendment did not necessarily ban people convicted of felonies from owning a gun. She declared a Wisconsin law, barring anyone convicted of a felony even if they aren't convicted of a violent crime, to be unconstitutional.
"[L]egislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous,"
I think she could be really good on the second amendment. On other issues she might be a wait and see. That said, I'm not the President nor am I sitting US Senator so I don't have much say in the matter. I do think we should wait until after the presidential election to pick the next Supreme Court Justice but I think she probably will be okay.
Much like the argument was in 2016, it makes no sense to appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an Election year. This year it’s much too political and being the end of a term, the person appointed by President Trump would likely be a third-rate back bencher, unlike the first justice appointed by a President during the start of their term.
Merrick Garland, was a third-rate backbencher appointed who sat on the US Court of Appeals but didn’t have a lot going for him besides his job on US Court of Appeals – and that he was a Democrat. He certainly didn’t strike me as man of intellect or offering much to the the court. I was much more impressed by Neil Gorsuch then Garland.
That said, I fully expect Donald Trump to appoint somebody much more of Garland then Gorsuch in his rush to get somebody appointed before the end of the year when Congress may flip Democratic, and before his term may end on January 20. But that’s not a very good excuse for appointing an immature, poorly thought out justice in an expedited reform process.
Assuming that President Trump is re-elected, then he will have plenty of time next year to appoint a competent, well thought out pick for Supreme Court Justice through a carefully-planned and reviewed confirmation process in US Senate. And if Trump isn’t re-elected, then the American people will have a chance to set the Supreme Court in a new direction.
Other academics agree that Democratic court packing is likely. "If the GOP goes forward with trying to fill the seat this year regardless of the election result, I think there is a substantial likelihood (at least 50% or more) that the Democrats will respond with court-packing, the next time they get a chance to do so," George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin said via e-mail.
But court packing would be a "terrible idea," Somin warned, "as it would lead to a spiral that undermines the institution of judicial review." It would also open the door for Republicans to respond in kind. "I don't see any likely way of avoiding the spiral, once one party has passed a court-packing bill once," he said.
Expanding the court isn't the only way to respond to what Democrats would perceive as an illegitimate election-year appointment, however. In a paper authored this year by Yale Law School professor Samuel Moyn and University of Chicago law professor Ryan Doerfler, the two suggest several options to overhaul the court by reducing its power.
The authors said lawmakers could require a Supreme Court supermajority for some decisions, so that major federal statutes aren't invalidated by a simple 5-4 ruling. Congress could also insulate specific legislation from judicial review — known in legal circles as "jurisdiction stripping."
These changes "would shift important policy disputes from the judicial arena to the small-d democratic one, thereby substantially reducing the importance of which party has effective control of the courts," Doerfler told NPR.